tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN August 20, 2009 10:00am-1:00pm EDT
democratic dinner organization in which five dozen democrats gathered at dinners in 43 states to hear a national radio hook up to hear fdr speak to them. what did that use of technology do for him? guest: it made him a national figure in ways no president had been before. it is hard not to imagine, but there had never been a time when the president before could really speak to the people and everybody heard the same thing at the same time. earlier presidents have done this, but we're just giving regular speeches that were put on the rea. he could really talk to someone in a tenement in new york city or in a form in montana. it was the beginning. we all know about that now. host: your enthusiasm is
bubbling over and we can tell you had a lot of fun with this story. here is the book -- "fdr v. the constitution: the court-packing fight and the triumph of democracy." thanks to him for being with us, and for you for watching. have a great rest of the day. . . >> the impact of slowing medicare spending on its seniors. c-span2 is showing it live. president obama is talking to
various groups about health care today. he will be a guest on a radio program this afternoon. we will have live coverage here on c-span as the show broadcast from washington d.c. the president is expected for 1:10 p.m. eastern. >> as the health care conversation continues, c-span's healthcare hub is a key resource. follow the latest tweets and l inks. keep up-to-date with town hall meetings and even upload your opinion about health care with a citizen video. the health care hub at c- span.org. >>gene taylor hosts a town hall meeting to talk about veterans' issues and hurricane katrina. lawmakers are holding a similar meetings this month. because of technical
difficulties, we join this meeting in progress from mississippi. it is one hour and 10 minutes. >> everyone is entitled to their own opinion but these are the facts. the fact of the matter is the debt has been growing allot in yours and mine lifetime. ok. [inaudible] ] -- >> [inaudible] >> shut up and listen. [applause] >> what i think everyone needs to remember is that a little over eight years ago we were running annual operating surpluses. they were small, we still had an accumulating debt, but when george bush took office we had a small surplus.
bush took office, we had a small annual operating surplus. president it does not make sense to pay down the debt prematurely, therefore we have to pay a premium. we have calculated the amount of debt the nation can pay off over 10 years and that is $2 trillion. that is what could have happened, but the national debt doubled during those eight years because of katrina, the wars in iraq, but also the first president i know of to cut taxes during the war. most of the other taxes increase to pay for the wars, because most other generation said let's pay our bills now and not stick our kids with them. [applause]
back up a little bit. [applause] some people have asked about the fair tax. back up, too. back up. one more. ok, that their tax -- folks. >> [inaudible] >> we will get to questions. this is an answer to the fair tax question. it is billed as a 22% tax on everything. there will still be a 7% tax for mississippi because that is how the state gets half of its
revenue. folks, i hope you came to listen and then i will listen to your questions. [shouting] >> the problem with it is -- it is not a 23% tax because if the after-tax cost is $100 and it costs $77, -- a $23 tax on 7 $7 is a 30% tax. next. on $77 is a 30% tax. a 30% tax would not raise enough revenue to replace the current system. it would have to be at least
34%, even if there was no tax evasion. the bush treasury department said the rate may have to be as high as 40% very how would this affect the typical mississippi family? if you are a married couple making $39,000, very modest, the current federal taxes are $5,600. under the fair tax, you would be taxed $14,000. you get a rebate of $6,000, leaving you with a fair tax - 3 date of seven dozen dollars. the $6,000
ok. can you hear me? health care expenditures in america. hospital care -- this is total national spending on health care. our nation already spends $746 billion on hospital care. $508 billion on physician services. other personal care services is $236 billion. home health care is $64 billion. prescription drugs is $235 billion. administration and insurance profits is $165 billion. research and facility investment is $152 billion. that is a lot of money.
national health spending by a source. for those who don't think we do much, we do quite a bit. federal government spends $810 billion on healthcare. state and local governments spend $290 billion on healthcare. private insurance is $278 billion. >> medical expenditures, this is where your tax dollars go under the existing plans. about $157 billion for hospitals. insurance plans is $98 billion. prescription drugs is $48 billion. nursing homes is $24 billion. administrative expenses is $6 billion.
where does the money come from? medicare revenues. [crowd shouting] >> payroll taxes is $198 billion. the beneficiary premiums is $50 billion. tax on income -- tax on social security is $11 billion. what does mississippi get all ready? this is a huge. nursing homes get $672 million. inpatient hospital is $543 million. facilities for the mentally retarded is $277 million. all of these are millions. mental health clinics is $130 billion.
as i mentioned, we have one of the most favorable ratios of federal dollars to state dollars for medicaid. for every 19 cents the state puts up, the federal government matches it with 81 cents. that means the government is putting up $2.5 billion. what is the other factor we have to keep in mind? what is the other factor we have to keep in mind? in addition to the cost of existing situation, we as a nation are getting old. when my dad was teenager, there were 20 working people for everyone retiree. right now there are three working people for every retiree. if i live to retirement age, there will be only two working people for every retiree, demographically, it does not any easier to pay these bills, it
gets harder. that is why we need to think wisely right now without running up the tab. in 1960, their only 1 million americans over 85. right now, it is close to 5 million people, and they are projecting a 2030 there will be close to 9 million americans over 85. it is this a simple, sad fact of life, as we get up in age, we will have higher bills. the last thing, again, because these are commonly asked questions, and then will vote your questions. i see my friend pat right now who is trying to build a hurricane proof house. he is probably paying enormous bills on that hurricane proof
house. we are still working to have the federal government let you buy when insurance as an option to your flood insurance. a great many of you came to my town hall meeting shortly after the storm and said which i was counting on paying to put me up after the storm did not -- they denied my claim. what did that mean when they deny your claim? it meant somebody had to take -- has somebody had to pick up the promise. george bush made the promise. i am glad he did. [applause] george bush stood in jackson square and said if you have lost your home and you need a place to stay, we will get you a fema trailer. those trailers cost about $15,000, about the market price to buy, but one of the big
contributors got the contract to deliver them for about $16,000 per trailer. in mississippi, we had 42,000 trailers, so that is 1300 million trailers. we don't want the government in the wind insurance business, we already paying that bill. we already paid the bill, but the people who buy the premiums ought to pay for the premiums. what many of us discovered, starting with may, it is that never -- i never would have dreamed i would pay a quarter of a million dollars on my taney -- on my tiny house. the flood insurance only has $250,000 limit, so one of the things is we want to get the amounts you can purchase up. we want to get the amounts for
your possessions up. above all, we want to see to it that no matter what happens to your house, if you build your house rate and pay your premium, come back the day after the storm and it is gone, you will get paid. you don't have to hire a lawyer. that did not happen last time. we want to make sure it happens next time. to hire an engineer. with that did not happen last time and we want to make sure it happens next time. we have talked about some things that are commonly asked. we will go ahead and let you ask questions, one at a time. let me do one last thing. i have a number of my staffers with me here tonight. going back to what normally happens, should anyone here have a social security problem, a veterans' problem, a medicare or medicaid problem, something that involves you and you want to talk to one of my staffers, i
have people here so you can look someone in the face and give them information. we have ms. peggy r. be in black, bowed jackson -- bo jackson, bob carson, so does anyone have an individual problem they need some help with? raise your hand. ma'am, do you have an individual problem? peggy, can you talk to this lady? bob gerson and billy r. my two veterans experts. bob, we take his information, please?
>> we cannot hear. >> i did not vote for president obama. i was not happy with president bush the way he spent money. i am not happy with obama with the way he is spending money, but i did support gene taylor, and there is a reason why. for the last 25 years, he has cared about mississippi, and he listens about mississippi. there are a lot of congressmen that are shutting their doors. they are not listening to us. they are calling us mobs. we are not mobs in mississippi.
my question is, as a staff auditor, i have not seen the federal government make one attempt to clean up one mass. -- to clean up one mess. [applause] i have not seen them clean up the sec. enron should not have happened. we have enough regulations to stop that but it is not happening. there is too much corruption, there is too much going on that is not being checked. >> do you want me to answer that? >> no, if you cannot clean up the little job, how can you take away all of our health care that we paid for? [applause]
>> thank you very much. we will start in reverse order. i would hope by now that everyone in this room is aware that i will not vote for the health care plan. [applause] >> please, one at a time. quite honestly, it goes back to that 11 billion -- $11 trillion of debt. it will collect enough money between now and 2017 to make its annual operating expenses. because of that retiree population, medical inflation, because of the prescription drug
benefit i didn't owe -- i didn't vote for , it will no longer collect enough to pay the bill. three things we can do to make perfect sense. the insurance industry was given a one-year exemption from anti- trust laws. they are still exam for them. that is crazy. i'm glad to hear that because that not only affects your homeowners insurance, that affects your health care. everybody competes. they ought to compete as well. on the medicare prescription drug benefit i voted against, there was a provision that actually prohibit it our nation from using our huge purchasing power from getting a better deal from the pharmaceutical companies. that is crazy. when home depot buy stuff, they get the best price because they buy so much. if one of dubai's 10 cars a year
you get a better deal than someone who buys one. -- if you buy ten cars a year, you will get a better deal than someone who buys just one. benefit by a guy who left congress to go to work for farcical manufacturers. -- for a pharmaceutical manufacturers. something we should do to give you a better deal for your tax dollars, remove the anti-trust exemption, number two, take out that language and let our nation negotiate for better prices. the third thing is generics. i am fortunate to have a chemist/for merck pharmaceutical manufacturer on my staff. -- former pharmaceutical manufacturer. he has explained to me very clearly that generics are just about the exact same thing you would buy if you by the name
brand stuff, only it is a lot less money. for example, many of you have heard of cialis. it has been around for a while, so the patent on it has expired. we checked with the drug store across from my office. right now that are selling cialis for 50 cents a tablet. but the one that they advertise on television, in every one of dad's they say tell your doctor you need this. cialis-cr is $5 a tablet.
a thousand pardons -- ambien, not cialis. just chalk that up to an old man. [laughter] ambien is 50 cents a tablet. ambien-cr is $5 a tablets. for the things we buy with your money, we have to get the best price. if someone absolutely has to have the name brand, let them pay the difference. those are three things that we as a nation can be doing right now, we ought to be doing this fall to stretch your tax dollars. the second thing is, a lot has been made of court reform. the mississippi state legislature has addressed that, and i have not heard many
doctors -- i cannot think of the doctors complaining about tort reform in the past couple of years. it should be done on a state-by- state basis. i voted for tort reform and i was a state legislator. i have voted for it in washington. what we need now is insurance reform to go on top of that. she made some great points. unfortunately, if you remember back in 1999, congress passed something that repealed something that anyone my age would remember which was called glass-steagall. in high school, that only taught me three bills, but they stuck with me. glass-steagall was one those three, because what it said was that the banks cannot take your deposits and go gamble with them on wall street. that law was passed right after the depression because banks were gambling with people's deposits on wall street. they lost that money.
those people lost everything, and the banks walked away scot- free. so in the 1930's congress passed a very good law called glass- steagall, which said banks cannot gamble with your money on wall street. it came up in 1999. they said with all the great accountants out there, with all the great electronics we have out there, we do not need that anymore. i voted against that. i thought glass-steagall made sense for 60 years and i thought it should have stayed on the books. interestingly enough, bill clinton and republican house and senate were all in on it. to his credit, the president of the biggest bank in self mississippi, he has passed on, but he called me up shortly after that and said we wanted
you to vote for that. i said mr. leo, you are a conservative guy. your bank does not need to be gambling on wall street. he thought for a second and said you are right. the bank prides itself on saying on signs out front, bailout, no thanks. waterboard going to do? -- what are we going to do? we need to pass something like glass-steagall this fall, put it back on the books, so that banks get back to their core business of banking, and investment firms do what they do, which is investments. did not mix the two. if you want to gamble, go gamble, but if you one is money to be say, it needs to be safe in the bank. the jeep you want your money to be safe. i am recognizing one at a time.
i will get you, james. -- how will get to you, james. >> the past six months we have had the stimulus bill rammed down our throats, cap and trade through congress, we had spending bills shoved down our throats. >> i guess you know i voted against all three. >> you did, it was all done by nancy pelosi. would you vote for her again? >> we will see who the candidates are at the time. [applause] i will tell you of the two candidates last time, one came from south mississippi and said she would help with our wind insurance. the other did not bother to come
down here. it is true. let's do this. i appreciate you coming, this is no diss on anyone here. at my last few town hall meetings i had folks said i did i get a chance to talk. ok, why don't you say something? i travel so that people don't have to. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> know and else did to my knowledge either. i don't know what anyone who got here on the bus. -- no one else did either. >> i am a conservative like you. i appreciate all the things you do for south mississippi.
everybody here should. i do not have a question. i have a point i want to make. i have a nephew who lives in new zealand. they are under national health care. he is 16-years old. he had a rotator cuff injury on his shoulder. it took him nine months in a sling to get a doctor's appointment. his family under national health care had to pay half the cost of a $40,000 operation. if you folks want nationalized health care of that nature -- >> again, i am not for the obama health care plan. >> i know you are not. i appreciate that. >> for the reasons you outlined
-- >> medicare fraud is absolutely outrageous. [applause] >> do we have the handouts? >> we had a local incident of medicare fraud here. if someone would take the time to look at all the cheating going on, there is no telling how many trillions of dollars that could be saved. [applause] >> did you remember to print that out? sir, is it mike? that is the list of all the fraud hot lines. we have a copy of that by the door. we are not a police state. we cannot be everywhere. [applause] if you are a concerned citizen and you are aware of it and i am
not, i would ask you as a concerned citizen -- >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> apparently you do because you just said it. >> [inaudible] >> that is what we have the hot line up there for you. >> [inaudible] >> if you see it happening, that is why they have them. i am certainly not on this end. if you see something that i don't, -- i am certainly not o mniscent. >> [inaudible] [applause] >> [inaudible]
[shouting] >> i have been a democrat for 28 years since i first ran in the city council. i would think i voted as an american. [applause] how about this gentleman? i would remind you that several people on the ballot last november, a presidential candidate and two senators and myself, i am grateful i got most boats in this district. >> [inaudible] -- i got most votes in this district. yes, sir. >> my name is richard and item from mississippi. i am neither a republican nor a democrat. -- i am from mississippi. [applause]
i would like to reiterate what this lady asked a minute ago. every time we turn around we are fighting to save some of our freedoms. the government is getting bigger and bigger, and taking more. frankly, we are done with it. >> can i ask you to be specific? >> ok, health care, i don't want you messing with my health care. i pay $700 a month for my health care. i don't want somebody registering my guns. i know you have taken a good stand on guns but we are having this fight. keep going. i don't want any more government. i don't want a national id. [applause] do not want a noti.d.
appreciate you can. however, if you are like millions of americans who have lost their jobs and no longer have $700 a month to pay for insurance, these are people that have to be considered also. they are all real americans. [applause] >> out of courtesy to your fellow citizens, if you like what they have to say, a club for them. if you don't come at don't clap. -- clap for them. we don't need to be booing our fellow americans opinions. are you from here?
do you want to get this? >> the first thing i wanted to know is when tarp legislation was passed to the first time it was 3:00 in the morning. i am told that parts of the bill were put in just before it was put together. >> i >no -- i've voted no, but i would remind you that both of the presidential candidates did vote for it. >> what about cap and trade? >> i voted against that also. i think it is a ponzi scheme. i voted no. >> do you >cap -- do you except cap money? >> yes, i do, including the
local shipyard. >> local people only? >> almost all of them have a local interests including the nra. >> read the 10th amendment carefully. >> ok, as a former city councilman and state senator, there probably is not anyone in this room who better understands how much i want this cities to do their job, how much i want the states to do their job and we are there to back them up when they need us, but we need them doing their jobs on a day to day basis. are you from here? i am sorry. [inaudible] ] -- >> [inaudible] >> who else is from moss point? how about the gentleman over here with the polka dot blue tie?
ok, we will get to you. >> i am a resident of mississippi but president of the naacp. i would like to ask a question. i realize that the current health care proposal may have some problems and you will not vote for it, but i think there are some alternatives on the table. i would like to know if there is any way that there is an alternative you would consider the hard-working and recipients who do not have proper coverage -- hard-working people from mississippi who do not have proper coverage? if there was a compromise reached that provides people that would provide the coverage
that this country should provide come up with you consider supporting that measure? [crowd shouting] >> respect for your fellow citizens. respect your fellow citizens. i have outlined 46 cents out of every health care dollar total. dollar total. it is either federal money, state money, or local money, so almost half of the bill right now is tax money. medicare is scheduled to quit collecting enough to pay its bills come 2017. i think it is more important right now to keep the promises we have already made by getting congress on things like prescription drugs, taking away
the insurance company's antitrust exemption, and finding, the [unintelligible] i have made new promises. the reason that you are eligible from the day you join the service is because of me. [applause] that was my fight, and we won. if you are retired military, the reason you have health care is because of me. i shut down the house of representatives. i have done quite a bit too expand health care. when you and i were kids, the only americans who were promised health care where our military. when you and i were kids, there were charity hospitals. then around the 1960's, medicare and medicaid. then we expanded military health care to keep the promise that we may to guys like henrico.
if he served 20 years, we would pay his health care bills for the rest of his life. with $11 trillion worth of debt, i just don't know where the money is going to come from. i don't want to get our nation and the further into debt. you asked a great question. [applause] are you from here, sir? >> [inaudible] >> walk through the aisle. then we will get to you, mitch. >> [inaudible] >> i will get to that. i will get to you. >> as a follow-up to carly's
question, i am concerned they may make little changes in the proposed bill and representatives and senators that have made their mind up not to vote for it currently may change their mind and vot for it with some little changes. one thing i am concerned and it is my concern that under the public option, private enterprise cannot compete with big government and their deep pockets. it seems lately that any time that the government needs more money these days, they just start printing more out of thin air or wherever. >> can i cut to the quick, sir? i am not going to change my vote based on any small changes. you can ask that scenario 1000 different ways, and the answer is i will not vote for it.
i told you the three things i m four and hope we will do right now to start saving money. >> and i believe you, but i am afraid some others across the nation -- yesterday kathleen sebelius said the administration was going to drop going tooption and change to the coffee option -- change to the co-op option. >> i understand your concerns, but a tweaking here and there will not change my mind. i have told you what i am for it. in fairness, the question was asked of me, what is the difference between this and wind insurance? there is a huge difference. i have said all along that if we have a plan that allows you to buy wind insurance as an option to year flood insurance, it has
to pay for itself. it will not increase the national debt. it has to be done in a way that is balanced. we will be collecting premiums and will pay the cost on an annual basis. what you are doing is spreading the risk. right now in mississippi, for those who say we don't want the government in the wind insurance, the government is already in the the wind insurance. the state has 8 $6 billion exposure. the state general fund budget is only $6 billion. if we have a terrible storm, it could bankrupt the state. if you spread it around coastal america, you are spreading the risk. the chance of those coastal communities getting hit is not going to happen. you can ride advertisements saying don't let this happen to you. great question, and that is the difference.
>> [inaudible] >> great question. the health-care bill even with the changes that a couple of guys would be able to get out of would cost the nation $900 in new tax dollars or $900 billion in new debt. we don't have that kind of money. does anyone up here have a question? mayor, would you like to introduce the council? just quickly. >> yes, we are going to start to my left. mr. tommy hightower, ward five. we have our jackson county supervisor milton harris. we have houston cunningham, our at large member.
this surely chambers, ward 4. ms. ruby heel, ward 2. >> thank you. if anyone has a question after the meeting, i would be more than happy to meet with you. >> what is the difference to spending billions of dollars providing health care for everybody, and we are spending billions of dollars on a war that we should not have been in. what is the difference? >> again, i don't know if you heard it, the question is what is the difference between that and the war. it is a very fair question, and they are both expensive. i did vote to send us to war in afghanistan. i voted us -- i voted to send us
to war in iraq. [applause] both of those wars are extremely expensive. both, in terms of your tax dollars, but more importantly in terms of those lives. guys like johnny pope who were buried on saturday. several people, major green from this community. we are in it. at this point, we have to see it through. i do believe we will be out of iraq by august. i just had a high-level meeting with general john kelly, marine corps three-start last week. he is convinced we will be out of their.
unfortunately, afghanistan is going to be a mess for a while to come and it is going to be expensive. i think we need to get there, kill those people that need to be killed, make peace with those that are willing to make peace with us, and come home. [applause] that is a very fair question, sir. are you from here, sir? >> originally i read an article in florida. my name is pat macdonald. there was an article in one of the magazines about an investigation into the medicare problem in florida. they looked at 1700 medical providers, medical equipment, durable equipment. 114 out of 1700 were fraudulent. i talk to my doctor last week
before my wife had her back operation. he spent about 30 extra minutes with us. he has reported to medicare on six occasions in the last six months fraud. nobody ever from medicare ever contacted him back. >> do you see that young lady right there? >> [inaudible] if the congress and the house of representatives would make fraud charges equal to what bernard madoff got, and send them to jail forever, this problem would stop [inaudible] >> his observation was on fraud, and i will remind you that at the doors, we have hot lines for
all of the fraud and abuse lines. if you see it, is your money. if you want to save your money, turn them in. i promised the former state representative behind you. >> congressman, thank you for coming. once this war is over with, veterans like myself in the state of mississippi and across this nation, are you committed to not cut our benefits in support us 100% like we have supported the united states? [applause] [cheers and applause] match, my job right now is to keep the promises that we have
already made including our promises to our veterans. that is why i am not making any new promises. it is expensive. carl, i don't want to dwell on it because i consider this man a friend. it is just a gift of god that he lived. he was in the hospital for years. he can walk and he can talk. when i first saw him, i never dreamt any of this things would happen, but it comes at a price. we are going to have a price to take care of him and his boy until that man is an adult, and we will keep those promises, mitch. [applause] >> i have several questions. >> how about one in fairness to everyone else? >> ok. illegal immigration.
back in the 1980's, i lived up in new jersey. on the way to atlantic city, there were illegal immigrants working at gas stations. they would have people, nine in 10 of them, living in the back of the gas stations. you called up immigration's a customs, did you know what they said? they said you are violating their privacy. >> on immigration, there is a bill that does a couple of things. i am a co-sponsor of that bill. an additional 8000 border patrol agents to secure the borders. secondly, and equally as importantly, if you think about it, they come here to work. americans go to mexico to goof off. [shouts]
>> so if you take away their ability to work, they quit coming. how do you do that? [shouts] so how do you do that? if they can find out can legally buy a gun, we have a system now in place. it is called e-verify, where a potential employer instantaneously can check to see if that potential employees is here legally. number one. no. 2 is if he knowingly hired an illegal alien, we throw the book at him. you take away the incentive to hire illegal aliens. third they, it starts with each and every one of us. like many of you, i lost my
house. i had to rebuild my house. i don't know how many of you, every contractor i dealt with, i said he will have an all american crew on my property. some of them would say that they are all here legally. i don't care. they are going to be american citizens. i paid a third more for my roof to get an all american crew. number one, it starts with each and every one of us. throw the book at those people who knowingly hire illegal aliens. because of some high-profile raids that of already taken place in mississippi, i am noticing a lot less of what i suspect to be illegal aliens right now. [shouting]
>> [inaudible] >> i am not from moss point. i have an observation followed up by a question. you are a conservative and you regularly oppose your party on voting issues. why do you remain the party of nancy pelosi and harry reid and all of these people who continue to make us feel like we have to fight for our american freedoms? [cheers and applause] >> weaken both the stereotype. in the past couple of weeks, there have been three very high- profile republicans that got caught with their mistresses. i am not going to stereotype.
i am in a party with a navy admiral, a navy corporal. my good friend jim marshall is in the ranger hall of fame. it does not make me any of those things, but i am proud to be there with those people. i am pro-life. >> did you say that you work with thi >> did you say you were working on this bill with schumer for the immigration thing? >> no, keith schuler. -- heith schuler. >> let's talk about schumer for a minute.
>> he is a senator out of new york. >> he is planning to ram through this health care bill with a vote of the 50. can you fight against that for us in mississippi? [applause] >> i regret that i will have to ask you to repeat your question. i could not hear you. >> the question was, he has threatened to run this health care bill through with a vote of 50 after this recess. is there any way that you come up for us in mississippi, can't fight him against doing this? >> he is in the senate and i am in the house. i don't think this will become law. i am sorry there had to be so much banks in america but other representatives are hearing similar things around their districts. i don't think they will vote for it in september. in answer to your question, i am
a representative, he is in the senate. what happens in the senate, you need to contact our two senators. yes, sir come up behind you. . . i have been here for a little over 10 years. i wanted to emphasize that health care -- when you are a sick patient, health care is not in your interest to be run by the big business when the bottom line is profit. when you look at administration of government-run programs, roughly admission of cost are 3 cents on the dollar. others are about 20 cents on the dollar in order to do paperwork and all of the inefficiencies and profits that are involved in supporting big businesses. when you say you are conservative, and you support being not in front of your
health care run by bureaucrats, what you want is your health care being run by some big corporate board that could care less whether you are sick. [cheers and applause] >> #1, and thank you for what you do. we lost a lot of doctors after the storm. thank you for being here. you don't hear me that nothing medicare and medicaid. we can do a better job. you have heard me say that we need to bring two -- we need to bring true competition. they are exempt from it. they are exempt from it. the reasons why they can charge that much, doctor, and i don't believe you can do this or think you could call the others and say let's charge this much money, or call them up to say --
no, you can't. but they can. it is perfectly legal for the insurance companies to call each other up and say let's raise prices and cut coverage. you take alabama, you take louisiana, i will take mississippi. that has to change. that is one of the first things i want to get done when we come back. i hope a lot of people will ask the same question that you are asking. the insurance lobby is a powerful lobby. i think it is starting to dawn on people that they should not be exempt from the antitrust laws. when trent and i got together after the hurricane, we started to compare horror stories. quite honestly, he did not know they were exempt from the antitrust laws. he knows it now. it is one of those things that
we need to get the word out on. again, thank you for what you do. [applause] >> we met several times at different town hall meetings. >> folks, give daryl a chance. >> i would like to address my concerns dealing with the waste that you have up here ther. there was a plant -- >> i missed the name of the company. >> it was shut down by the epa a couple of years ago. they promised to clean up the area. all the citizens that lives in moss point were able to apply for some type of compensation benefit plan due to the waste in the cleanup process. a lot of them went out and got
attorneys cannot fill out paperwork. -- attorneys, filled out paper work. i want to know what has become of that plan that was agreed upon with the epa. >> the answer is, i don't know. if you give us your information, we will try to find out for you. you of the first one that has asked me that question in about 10 years. >> [inaudible] >> i think it has been a pretty good while. if you get me that information, we will find out for you. how about this lady over here, billy? >> speaking of medicare -- >> would you say your name? >> there was a bill that was
passed that a house foreign doctors to come in and be educated and become a doctor. medicare pays full amount for their education and their stake here in the united states. that bill should be repealed. it is taking money outf medicare for these foreign doctors to come over here and be educated. most of them don't go home. >> i don't know that to be true. >> i have the bill that was sent to me by another congressman a. i left it at home. >> i don't know if that is true. it does not sound right. to the best of my knowledge, the only people that are getting their medical education paid for
our people that agree to serve in the military. i think the rest of them take out loans. >> there are a lot of foreign doctors here that have been educated in the united states. i think most of them were educated by medicare. >> i don't think that is to but we will look into it. how about the lady in purple? billy, can you get to that lady? >there is five more minutes. we can get into more questions. the mayor has spent a small fortune on police. we are going to honor her request that we are going to wrap this up at 7:30. we want to get many of this police back to their families. yes, ma'am? >> i reside in hurley.
just a couple of remarks that i would like to make. the people in rural areas of our county recently lost some of our rights. when we feel like we are starting to lose them at the federal level, it is like adding insult to injury. people are a little fired up. >> could you be specific to what you think? >> what i feel like is that we are not having offer input as to what is happening to our health care. many other things, but i will not go into all of them. i would appreciate it if you would take a message back to us. we appreciate what you are doing for us. you have voted in a conservative manner. if you would take the message back to washington for us, that we are not idiots.
we are not in the business of name calling. we would appreciate if our leaders would spend more time paying attention and reading the bills that they are passing instead of calling us names. [cheering and applause] >> ok. thank you. thank you for the way you said it. i very amok -- i very much appreciate what he said. we are going to wrap this up. this gentleman is wearing a united states marine corps hat. >> first and last, i would like to congratulate you for facing all of us. if you want my vote, you will
have to do more than voting against. i want you to go back to washington and tell them how angry our fellow americans are. [cheers and applause] >> ok. come on. last one. ok, one last marine. i promised the police that they could get back to their families. >> most people around here call me buddy. there are a few things i would like to ask. let's talk about veterans. everybody in here, if you were a marine, and i have always been a marine, but when you in the 1960's, 1970's joined, they told
you you would have it for life. if you were not signed up by january 3, 2003, you will not get one penny unless you make less than $16,000 and only less than $3,000 worth of property. >> buddy, i think you are wrong. >> i am not wrong. >> body, we have bob person here tonight. he is going to get your information. >> i am trying to help somebody else. >> we have had the largest expansion of veteran benefits in the nation's history. they turned >> a "usa today" reporter was up the town hall meeting.
she has been going to many of the town halls meet -- dealing with health care. together today for an update on what they have been learning from town halls during their recess. kathy has a front-page story this morning. where did you go and what did you learn? guest: we have been to a couple of different places. i was most recently in mississippi on the gulf coast and john was in the polka knows of pennsylvania. host: why were those two members chosen? guest: we picked blue dogs, the conservative democrats who have been pushing back a little bet. they were the folks who said no, we do not want to but on this before the august recess. in the district i went to john mccain won this district
heavily. president. -- he got about 32%. we're looking at the people who are really likely to be under the most pressure, and see what people are telling them and how they are responding. host: how is a jean taylor's popularity? guest: hugely popular, he got about 75% of the vote. he is a 20-year veteran in the house. he is somebody who allen runs his party leader in the district. host: looking atideo from that town hall with taylor in mississippi. what did you learn from this process? guest: one of the things we're looking at, the democrats were saying that this is astro-turf to distinguish their from true
grasasoots. so, we return to determine if it was, or not. it is kind of like that new stadium turf, a little mix of both. you have people who are genuinely agitated, but the movement is alslsls being organd by a lot of conservative leaders with whom i spoke who have said that on the one hand there were a little surprised by the energy. they have been moving quickly to help organize this. you see a little bit of questioning that i think comes from inside the beltway, and then a lot coming from the true grassroots. host: let's show your page in the newspaper, the opinion page -- this column runs regularly
"common ground" -- saying have to break up town brawls. it says the large turnout is anything but spontaneous democracy. it says in 1985 this supported the declines positions by packing tunnels. let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these confrontations are spontaneous democracy at work. it says that liberals gathered and is a movement. conservatives gather and it is a collection of automatons. guest: yes, and i heard some of that. i have to say that i think there is no question there is some organization behind this, but it does not mean it is not a spontaneous -- that there is not some genuine feeling. one of a congressman who's
meeting i attended, tom p. from southern virginia, he is a democrat. he said he felt his party leaders were making a mistake to question the motivation of the people at these memeings. he felt the anger is genuine. there has been a lot of talk about people being bussed in. the parking lots were full. these people were driving their themselves. to say this is a complete fabrication, something manufactured by political organizers, is incorrect. at the same time when you hear people stand up and ask questions about cap and trade it it is hard for me to believe that just came from the kitchen table. some of the questions are definitely coming from outside
sources. you see people coming to the meetings with a big sheets of paper -- there are e-mail networks going on. one of the striking things about this is how much the movement seemed like the obama campaign. some of the folks who are organizing it ourself- consciously modeling themselves after the bombing campaign. -- they are self-consciously organizing and modeling themselves after the obama campaign. host: your quotation here suggests that they went to school for hal barack obama -- for w the obama campaign organized itself. guest: yes, i talked with some people for the freedom that works and dick told me he has
been studying sol o. and barack obama. he says that they are greed organizers even though he does not agree with their views. host: we will take your telephone calls. first of all, senator chuck grassley is on the front page shahere. i'm not sure how much this matters, but the early editions of "the washington post" in dili. here is the headline. people are angry on multiple fronts. it is time for the senate to move cautiously. by later editions they had it replaced it with the lead on the cia story. the senator chuck grassley story
is still on the front page in later editions of the paper, but has moved to an off-lead position. that is a little exercise on how reporting is being done on this. also, the effort has lost "the washington post" editorial-page -- the public plan is no longer an option. they say it is not a matter of ideologies. they say that is nose-counting. let me add on the front page of "the wall street journal" -- new prescription for the health plan -- split the bill. they hope that it would speed of the plan and held obama to meet
his goal of getting it passed by the years end. guest: i think the democrats laid this earlier and the reconciliation bill. it opens up the possibility of doing part of the legislation on this health care bill. it is eye-blazing inside the capitol stuff, but the reconciliation measure can pass without the 60-vote super- majority often needed for a controversial measures. the democrats gave themselves this option. they looked ahead and saw this possibility that they could be stymied. they decided to give themselves the option of bypassing the filibuster, essentially. host: let's get to phone calls for our guest.
this is michael. caller: good morning, i hope you will forgive my nervousness. i have a rare condition which causes some of us to speak funny and have a funny mannerisms in public like edith bunker. guest: i get nervous on tv and i do not even have an excuse. caller: thank you. i have done art therapy and music therapy as a christian social work volunteer. first, i w wt to apologize on bebelf of the christian committee for the way professing christians have played a big part with secular conservatives in turning these town meetings rather ugly, i think you would agree. viewers should have seen "the daily shoho last night and the
reruns this morning where fox news did not perpetrate these town hall meetings, but they sure do champion them. they champion them as being grassroots. in 2003, 2004 the called early protestors of bush's invasion in iraq " unpatriotic" and called those of us who voted for al gore "sore losers." this is my question -- i have searched on a "if it ain't broke, it did not fix it" on the web site -- really suffering people groups who need
government to step in summer with the financing, as well as families who do not have insurance. who are the people who say if it ain't broke, don't fix it? host: thanks, michael. guest: it is really interesting when i attended these town hall meetings i was struck by how many people i spoke with who are against the president's health- care plan who do not themselves have health insurance, or who purchase their own. i think a lot of people are extremely nervous. it is like the devil you know versusthe devil you do not. they are free of major changes. -- they are afraid of major
changes. there was a woman i spoke with in mississippi who talks about her concerns with finances. she is retired with her husband. they have company-provided health care. they also own a small airport in the area and she talked about how she feels about not being able to provide health insurance. she feels terrible about it, but they cannot afford to provide their employees with it. she is afraid if shoes required to provide it, it will put her out of business. -- she is afraid if she is required to provide it it will put her out of business. you're talking about something -- health insurance is personal to people -- am i going to be able to see my doctor? host: the next call is from
charlotte, n.c. on the republican line. caller: good morning. a quick comment about the town hall meetings. the democrats are very motivated to get out. republicans are somewhat passive. when they show up i believe you're seeing actual response and feeling. the perfect example -- and one of ours we had an attendee beset his representative mel white did no do town hall meetings. so he came to ours. i think the democrats are underestimating this true response. guest: which representative ? caller: mel.
my question is, the response we're getting at town hall meetings, do you think this is the weakening of the american public as to obama's overall policies? it did strike a nerve with people, but are they working up as to what the general direction of the obama administration is toward nationalization of industries? what would you think about that? guest: the caller makes an interesting point. we found that many we spoke to at the meetings did have health care on their minds, but many did. did not. the president's health-care plan seems to be a lightning rod and is attracting people who are
angry, some about the health care plan, some about overall government spending. some are angry about the bailouts of all kinds. some of the organization for this started last year when president bush was still in office. there were people angry about the bailout then for some of the banking companyies. i heard a lot of people who were upset about illegal immigration. it is broader than health care, yes. host: to the point of who is and who is not having town hall meetings -- you a trewrite thate of with an altogether.
is there a pattern? guest: there is not. it depends on the member of congress. many are not doing them in a traditional sense, but are opting for the telephone town halls. they will say they feel is more efficient and can reach more people, but any of us who have participated on telephone press conferences know that is much less free-wheeling. you cannot interrupt or follow up. you just have to take your turn. i'm not a mind reader. it is hard for me to say why they are doing this, but i suspect many of them are doing it that way. host: good morning, on the independent line with chris. caller: good morning, when you listen to the democrats and republicans calling in -- this is a very divisive issue. when you hear politicians from both parties talk you get the
feeling that nothing is really going to get done. if anything does get done, meaning if everyone agrees and there is a compromise and everyone is responsible, then long-term no one is responsible. i consider myself just an average joe, but a free-thinker. i read all different types of media and have information from different sources. i talk to people on the street, complete strangers, about it. i find that the average citizen in this country feels they're not being adequately represented. that the democrats tend to raise taxes and focus on [inaudible] , and the perception with republicans is that it is all about big business. we're losing sight of the small
businesses and individuals. that is very unfortunate. but what is fortunate and what i hope comes from this is that there is immobilized third prodded. if you need to have the checks and balances of three compared to two. -- i hope that what comes out of this is a mobilized third party. guest: do you have a third party in mind? caller: it is the problem with independents that you have the green and the libertarian -- they are not organized enough on issues to galvanize. it is a niche kind of thing. but all of the independents could get totogether to
realize the personal responsibility. our nation is at a tipping point and as a person who is a contractor in the washington, d.c. area, you will never@@@@@@ quite frankly, i am appalled -- i applaud their ethic. i also think that they are our country's future and that we have to reach out to illegals. we have to get our energy consumption under control before we could really talk about health care. host: thank you for participating this morning. what, if any changes, are you seeing in the party politics as a result of this aug? >> i think what we're seeing is sort of what you have sighted on the front pages. democrats are reevaluating their
strategy. this is exactly what the president was trying to avoid when he was pushing for passage before the august recess. it is a reality. this is a very complicated issue. it is very difficult to find a consensus on it. what you are now seeing is that the democrats are talking about may be pulling back a little, passing this in pieces, bit by bit. using this strategy in the senate of putting what they can on a reconciliation bill which is a technical way to say they will avoid a filibuster. many new strategies are being worked out. today the president's phone call with his supporters -- what you have seen is an intensity shift. last year it was the democrats,
liberals who had all the energy , who were lining up outside high school gyms and town halls to get into the meetings. this time it is the conservatives. what the president is trying to do is ask his folks were they are. host: here is an article by michael, let me look for a while we take calls. he announced he would take their questions on his radio program. let's go to alabama on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, about the town hall meetings -- if i owned $10 million in stocks in hmo's i would organize a group of people in dirty t-shirts to
go to a town hall meeting, too. but as a registered nurse, the problem we have is that if we looked at patience as a commodity that we trade on the new york stock exchange. i feel the media is partly to blame. we have two types of health care insurance. we have insurance the projects you if you work for the federal government or large conglomerate. the bills are paid if you get sick and go to a hospital. but if you're an individual, is a ponzi scheme. they do not pay your bills, increase your premium, or cancel. that is what the public option is put in there. it is for patients over 50 years old. they did dump and are not protected. not that they're bad americans and do not want to be responsible. they have no place to go. the private insurance companies dumped them.
the media has not explained that well enough. that is why we're doing this big hoopla in these town hall meetings. yes, these people are confused, but most of it is manufactured. it is because we do not look at health care as a service, but rather as a commodity. i'm willing to take questions. guest: have you had patients who have had that experience? they have been dumped by insurance companies? caller: absolutely. most of the people who have had to foreclose on the grounds or filed bankruptcy it has been because of health care. they will go through and their doctors will beg and fight with the insurance companies to please cover our patient, but they will say, this is a pre- existing disease or there is a family history. you have to be reasonable.
we all have that family history of some kind of disease because we all have mothers and fathers, sisters. if you are over 50 they do not care about you. if you are working for the federal government or large company, they make deals because they have a large pool of employees. that is a better policy, but the vast majority of our patients do not work for the federal government or for ibm. that is the problem. we have a large demographic of patients over 50 that private insurance companies do not want to cover. there is not a profit to be made from them. guest: well, this is exactly the argument the president has been making over and over again for the bill. this has wide support including republican support. it would eliminate the ability
of insurance companies to screen people for pre-existing conditions. that is a long-standing complaint. i would be shocked if any legislation passed without that. the other point the caller is making is what the do for people who are not in a corporate pool or some large pool? what do you do for them? now it looks like there's more interest from the congress in the coops. there is the recognition of the problem the caller has identified, but no consensus on how to deal with it. host: here is this reporter's statistic. the radio post said on his twitter that he received 5000 submissions for questions for the president today.
also, talking about incremental approach -- this third ranking democrat from south carolina has taken to reminding his colleagues that congress passed multiple piecemeal civil-rights bills and the 1960's and that activists had to put off demands for voting rights until 1965. lbj made it very clear that ahlf a loaf is better than no loaf. guest: and he is the chief vote counter in it that body of legislators. host: here is another headline. this story says that senator edward kennedy in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that massachusetts will not lack the senate the
twin his seat becomes vacant. --when his senate seat becomes vacant. guest: well, a reminder -- senator kennedy has been battling very serious illness. he has terminal brain cancer. i am sure he would be in the senate if you were able to be. he loves the senate. he has spent most of his life here. he has not been in washington since april. i think he understands what he is facing. that is a recognition of it. host: louisiana, on the republican line. caller: yes, i think these town
hall meeting target. there's one thing people are not thinking about and that is the constitution. -- i think these town hall meetings are break. i was listening to a judge and a couple of lawyers on tv yesterday. they say all this stuff is unconstitutional. i have also seen three or four of these states, if it passes that they will not go along with it. they will just forget about it, ignore it. i guess that is what it is. i do not know. guest: do you know specifically what is unconstitutional? caller: yes, the whole thing. also, giving money to acorn is
not constitutional. you need to be looking at other things of their besides the health care thing because there are lots of things going on that are not constitutional. host: thank you. do you want to talk about constitutionality of health care? has the issue been raised at all? guest: that call reflects what we are seeing at these town hall meetings. these are folks who are angry about a number of different issues. the president's health-care plan is really the lightning rod. the other point is, in all the meetings, and all the folks i talked to -- i did not find a single person who had voted for barack obama last year. this is not a matter of people who had supported the president who are now flaking off.
it is a matter of people who did not like him to begin with who are now more galvanize. for the president the complication is, does that mean that the independent voters will flake off? we did a poll that showed that that support is softening. that is the political complication for him. not so much those showing up who do not like him to begin with. but what effect they might have on others who are watching. host: kathy kiely along with her colleagues has a cover story in today's "usa today" -- listen to us -- >> president obama is talking to various groups about health care
today. he will be a guest on a radio program this afternoon. the show broadcasts from washington, d.c. the president is scheduled for 1:10 p.m. eastern time. at 2:45, president obama goes to the gen -- the democratic national committee to talk about health care and participate in a conference call. and we will have live coverage on c-span. >> as the health-care conversation continues, seize and's health care hub is a key resource. also keep up-to-date with health care events like town hall meetings, debates, even up load your opinion with citizen video.
from the associated press this morning, the senate finance committee resumes bipartisan talks on health care legislation today. six committee members holding a conference call. there are different views on what can be accomplished. chairman max baucus says that the panel is on track to reach an agreement. chuck grassley says that he has yet to see the kind of broadbased support on something as big as health care reform. also today, the obama administration is working to wind down the popular cash for clunkers program. the transportation department officials met with trade groups to discuss how the program will eventually end and respond to complaints over a backlog of rebate payments to dealers. now, a discussion on how the government is preparing for the possibility of a large-scale attack on the country's computer
networks. government executive magazine hosted this event. this is about an hour-and-a- half. >> good morning, everyone. thank you all for coming out this morning. it promises to be a very interesting discussion on cyber defense. before i turn over the program, i have a few brief announcements. i would like to take a minute to read -- to recognize the sponsors of today's event. we have six great companies with us today and i would like to tell you a bit about each of them. first, we have deloit. there offering technological specialties and internal
agencies processes and standards. next we have guidance software. it offers a speed of -- a suite of cybersecurity solutions. users can proactively identify and recover from covert network threats without disrupting operations. next, we have ibm, helping clients deliver value through greater efficiency. ibm's capabilities include services, software, hardware, research, and financing. cybersecurity issues are on the top of their strategic agenda. juniper networks offers the u.s. government pay security solutions portfolio, enabling a responsible and trusted and firemen. source fire is a world leader in security solutions.
they protect network assets before, during, and after an attack. last but lies and -- last and not least, we have vericode. next, i would like to remind everyone that if you have not already done so, please turn off europe's -- please turn off your cell phones. at your chair, you will find several items including a precise -- a subscriber form, and an evaluation form for you to provide us with feedback you can drop those of the registration table on your way out. if you know anyone who was not able to make it today, we have c-span with us. the event will be broadcast later today. with that said, i would like to turn the program over to our moderator who will introduce our panelists for today's event.
>> thank you so much. i'm going to start off by saying the best way for this to go is questions from all of you. even during the program, if i am speaking, feel free to raise your hand and we will get to your questions first. i do have plenty of my own as well i will have the panelists introduce themselves. give me a brief synopsis of your experience in this area of cybersecurity and maybe just a few comments on how you feel we're doing. >> i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i am brian fredericks. i am in the office of assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration. my focus in that office is a program that has been ongoing
now for about a year-and-a-half or two years. it deals with the defense industrial base, survivors -- cybersecurity, an insurance efforts. you can see by the name there, it is an outreach by the department of defense to those companies that the department of defense deals with in the private sector. the effort is to collaborate with the company is on improving network security on the defense industrial base unclassified networks. this network is in a pilot stage. when you read about collaboration between government and industry, here is a case in point where a department has taken that seriously and is
working with those companies in the private sector. from the department of defense standpoint, we understand there is the need. the collaboration has begun through this pilot program. >> do you want me to describe how i got into this? >> i was a foreign service officer. i was coming back from central america. i work for a guy named dick clark. he said, you know how to program computers, don't you? he said, i would like you to go to some meeting. what was that, 1992? that is how i got into this. >> tell them a little bit about the commission. >> since then, i have done a little bit more. the last thing was the
commission on cybersecurity that got a lot of attention. >> this is supposed to be a little bit about response, about recovery. that was part of the title. i thought i would share a story with you that i do not think has been told. when dick was in the white house, he gathered a group of people called the dirty minds project. its purpose was to figure out, if you were going to do a lot of damage to the united states, exactly how you would do that. if you do not understand how the offense could do it, you clearly do not know how to defend. they had really bright people. he brought me along to observe because i was not in their
league. these are people who understood how the network worked and where the vulnerability points were. i was expecting to hear that we have a problem with this and that. it turned out that that was not the problem. the way the united states -- the vulnerability for the united states was not technology. it was the idea that if the attackers did it in waves -- this is more true today -- if the attacker does it in waves, the defensive the neaveneer of e united states is one person thin. if you make them work for 28 or 29 hours -- that is what it takes in a big attack. you are going to work for long hours if you hit them with
another wave 18 hours into that and eight hours after that, you get them with another wave, there is no defense left. in the end, what has happened to cybersecurity it has ceased being an automation process. it has become a human capital issue. we have completely missed the human capital part of it. the chairman of your commission said that it is time to focus on the human capital side of the problem. >> i am a redskins fan born in texas. i have an opinion on everything and i am happy to be here today. let me start -- we're in your debt and for joining us today. you are the ones on the front line for this important challenge. it is critical that we support
you as best we can. thank you for joining us this morning. i spent 33 years in the united states air force. i ended up in the national security agency. we needed to see both our vulnerabilities and opportunities that existed in those technologies. i have been thinking about that for some time to devise the information assurance strategy. i taught dick clark everything that he knows. i need for that to get back to him. i am happy to be here this morning. thank you. >> thank you all. this is a fantastic panel. in i will start off with a general question. we have all seen all sorts of headlines about cyber attacks lately. the government websites being taken down.
it is getting a lot of attention from this administration and from the last administration. is the threat increasing or is awareness increasing, or is it both? what is driving that? >> the framework for me is yes, yes, and no. for the most part, competency goes back 20 years. the idea that for some reason it has not been competent is in my mind not the way to think about it. it is much more sophisticated. we have come to understand the threat in a way that is much more effective through all the technologies, which industry and government have developed, and there is an emerging better understanding. that simply seize the tip of the iceberg. we still have a total misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the strategic
context of the threat. yes, it's competency has increased, but we are not coming anywhere near understanding what the strategic implications are of the threat. >> it sounds like what you were talking about. it is not just about defense in terms of protect -- protecting against cyber attacks. >> into aspects of it that had a little bit to what ken has said. one comes from mike mcconnell, who in an interview said something that was very moving. he said that we have a strategic inflection point in warfare not unlike the inflection point that happened in the 1940's when we understood that nuclear weapons were going to change warfare. we knew that there were going to
change warfare. this one as opposed to nuclear is one that people are using all the time. it is not one that they're waiting to use. it is bigger than just whether people have their certification and accreditations done. people keep thinking of this as a government and military problem. in interesting document i saw was the head -- a letter from the head of mi5. they said if you are doing business with china, your company's computers are being attacked with exactly the same techniques. they are being used against the military. that is because the pla has an economic mission as well as a military mission. when you go to work in negotiating a major new contract
or upgrade, the people your negotiating against know more about what you are willing to do than you do. this is across the board. you have heard about this defense industrial base. that is not because we're interested in it, but it has lost some of the most sensitive information we have seen in our country. the negligence is palpable. we are trying to make it better, but the losses are just amazing. it is a strategic inflection point. >> what is it? what do we do? >> that is a hard one. in answer to your question, what has really changed -- two things have changed. first is the opportunities have increased for the opponents. we're a target-rich environment.
sometime in the last five or 10 years, the internet and computers in the digital infrastructure went from being an ornament to a central pillar of how we govern and how we produce and how we defend ourselves. our opponents have been quick to pick up on that. an increasing vulnerability. there has been tremendous economic growth. hopefully those will occur some point in the future. when we have been taking advantage of the internet for economic reasons and communications, we have created new vulnerabilities that people have not been shy about exploding. -- about exploiting. we do have competitors. we have competitors that are other nations. some of them are easy to identify. others are harder.
they might be allies in some situations we are competing with them in a new way. in this new way, conventional military forces might not be as important. we're in a new kind of strategic conflict. not only our thinking, but our terminology has not adjusted to take that into account. we're surprised it does not fit. i met with some chinese officials and they ask me, do you think there is an arms race in cyberspace? i said that does not make any sense. what does that mean? a better laptop? until we can think of a new way to conceptualizes, we're always going to running a little bit behind. we're the most vulnerable. we're like the fastest kid in the school challenging everybody to a foot race. there is no way we can win this game the way we're playing in now. >> the increased reliance on the
lot of it has got to do with the capabilities in terms of protections, given the news in the industry. some advance, some still trying to catch up. >> before you leave this topic, i would think of the threat inversely to the way it is discussed. i used the analogy of an iceberg. in my view, the and structured threat is the tip of the iceberg, those things that we typically see in hackers, denial of service activities, and that tends -- tend to attract our interest. i would suggest that we focus on the core of the iceberg. when you think about it, structured a threat to is
threatening the survival of your activity to do what you need to do. unstructured for it simply degrades the operations. you should think of your investment in terms of dealing from the bottom up. rather than the way we to do we have discussions which is from the top down. that will deny the offering sanctuary that the threat has today and will lead you to business success. >> what do you mean exactly by "structured" threat? >> legitimate operators with front and intelligence apparatus designed to extract the intellectual property of the adversary can bring in back and an undetected way that threatens their survival as it operates. as opposed to a unstructured, which is typically what is
treated in the news and what not, and that is where we have spent the most of our time in the last 15 years. >> one more question before we get into response. many of you mentioned productivity as an issue. how do you manage the risk, which is when it comes down to, while still allowing innovation? >> there is one model that i have seen that could be the core to the answer of that question. there is no perfect set of answers, but there was some work done. they look at what had to be done, and they created a risk
index, so that they could measure improvement. if you are going to move organizations forward, you have to have numerical measures of improvement that are reliable -- meaning two testers get the same answer -- and are important. and john, more than anyone else, has figured out how to take these critical controls and say this is how you measure it -- albeit not perfectly. if you are looking for a model, for where we go -- as i said, he does not say it is anywhere near perfect -- but this is the foundation that we can build on as in the government and an industrial base. >> if i remember correctly, that
was based on previous guidelines? >> yes, the work that john gilligan had been doing took the work that the nsa was doing. if you do not do this, you ought to be fired, and that is the way i described it. if you take me 140 pages which they call top priority, still nobody really pays attention. it is really 60 controls. the ones who actually understand offense, how the attacks are done, have agreed that these test need to be done first. if not, structured threats will kill you. john figured out how to measure and monitor, and when he did the measurements, the organization's
reach out to fix it. usually you are beating people over the head insecurity, but by having reliable metrics and sharing how everyone is doing across the embassies, he got them to fix the problem. what he does, so few people in security do. instead of trying to find a gotcha game, he finds the people who do it well and make a model on of them. >> anyone else want to mention managing risk? >> the notion here, that when you wake up in the morning you are not secure -- so you are not actually avoiding risk. the suggestion here is that we are never secure. you have to get on the other side of that line in order to
talk about a set of activities. otherwise, only the security person wakes up having these thoughts. but we all wake up looking and thinking about what we are going to do today. the question is, how can you create a conduct a way of analysis to create -- to accomplish your goals? it is like soccer, not football. we have to play offense and defense. >> the department of defense has obviously had a good bit of effort to secure its networks. what we have tried to do, and the program that we are in now, working with industry, and i
think that has to have the attention of not just your cio's and the company, but leadership. from the beginning of our program, at the deputy secretary of defense level, he has met his counterparts and ceo's. the idea is at the top level, they are sensitized to this issue. that then helps this to become something integrated across corporations, as opposed to a security nation -- niche. part of the overall program, not
something added on as an afterthought. >> that is a key challenge of coordination with the industry. it has been coming up. my impression is industry wants to work with government on that, but there are some challenges with that. the government regulate industry? his industry allow itself to be held accountable in certain circumstances? his information being protected? how does the government partner with the industry, in the true sense, by dealing with these concerns that they have made known? is the obama administration working on this? jim? anyone? industry is a key factor.
>> to me, the question you're asking, the framework, how do you turn the vulnerabilities which we have discussed, which are shared, between the public and private sector, and in our homes and families, how you turn those blur abilities into sharing benefits? you do that by creating a relationship where that shared opportunity is identified by industry and they can go in there and provide you with products and phonology is that deal with those vulnerabilities. so the federal part of that in my view is to set up the building codes and standards, what ever is necessary to the industry comes in and makes their offerings and blend into the legacy infrastructure but add new products and services and technologies for what we need. the role of the government is not to build products but to
build specification by which products and services and technologies can be built. the rest of the end authentication process -- in their custody and authentication process which verifies -- their past to be an authentication process which verifies this. all the good work everyone at this table is doing to create alliances are important. in making those shared with vulnerabilities shared opportunities, the government's role is to great building codes and standards, industry's role is to create those products and services and technologies to be certified. we want to work at the bottom of the iceberg, and we are not building products and services and technologies.
>> should know standards extend to industry? does the government need to regulate how they protect themselves? >> remember what i said. industry can build standards. that is why they build products. if there is no regulation issue, there needs to be a shared opportunity. everything does not have to be secure. it just has to perform. i may need different levels of authentication and the charity, and so on, but industry finds its way through that model depending on what is essential. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. there is a microphone behind you. >> i was going to say that for
later. many people of u.s. industry as the bed, evil person doing nothing about the challenge. i am one industry guy who is going to suggest that is not the case. i want to pose to the audience that there is a lot of work going on currently, collaborative lee between industry and government. the people that are the number of operators are fighting this 24 hours a day. generally, our mission critical activities is resilient. i wanted to ask the panel, however, there is a lot being done now, so what do you see as the role of government from your perspective in facilitating that collaboration so that we recognize a common mission of improving national homeland and economic security and that we are in this together?
industry does not get treated as a full partner and either the strategical or at the tactical level in how we deal with this issue. >> you are fighting everyday. that is what we have to ask. we have a good game plan for a budget of six-year old to play soccer. maybe we can do better. my answer is, no, we probably cannot. there are some problems that are too complicated to solve by america. if you want to parallel -- look at health care. we are at a serious disadvantage as a nation because we spend twice as much as any other rich country on health care. we are not going to be competitive in the world if you are carrying that live around
cyber -- around. cyber is sort of the same way. we need to think of a new way. we have a foxhole mentality. i am going to make my network secure. that is great. if you are a soldier, you are only looking up for your own foxhole. that does not really work, so how do we find a way to do this as a nation? some sort of a national approach. that is hard to do. i do not think it is impossible, and we do not want to overestimate the problems at other countries have, too. we are unusual in some ways, but we are not unique in having these political problems. it is just going to be hard to do. dubai have anything else to add on that? -- do i have anything else to
add on that? going back to dick clark, he is like a ghost. in the mid-90s in the clinton administration, we had this notion that we would set up these things and information sharing would be a way to cooperate. we are still working off that model of the late clinton administration, and maybe it is time for a new model. >> alan? >> i think we may need to build on a tiny spark to start a fire. there is a small spark of a solution to a larger partnership. the government has certain knowledge that it does not share all that well above what the actual threats are.
it has had certain knowledge that only one of the organization in the world would have. it is a center of excellence that does not get into products. if he won a great partnership, that knowledge has to turn into procurement specifications. so the partnership, what if the government knowledge of attack and more to shape their performance specifications for the products and services we by on a continuing basis? then industry says, you did not ask us. do not get mad because you are not at the table. there is knowledge about the attack. if you do not have something to fix it, it is time to fix your
products instead of winding at the table. this is a moment in time when there is a spark and these agencies are saying that maybe they know enough. when this part -- the two really smart people in the industry with the technical responsibility as well as the government affairs responsibility, you hear a quite yes, do not let my company know that i am saying this, but this is the only way that we will solve the problem. you have to drive us to the a procurement process. >> with respect to the program i'm involved in, it involves the apartment of defense sharing with companies, information that has been developed by the department of defense and the rest of the government with respect to the threat. this can be used by companies in
terms of improving security and cost at our enterprise. at the same time, as part of this program, for the first time, because we are in a 24/-- 24/7 world, we are getting reports from companies. when that happens, then it is the dod that becomes the operational focal point in this , and they also cordoning within the government. so we have one organization that pulls it together. at the same time, reporting coming in from industry is then turned and going back up to the broader industry, so that people are seeing quickly what is happening to other countries. -- companies. this is a formal process that
is underway and is something that companies have asked for, and we have shaped the program to accommodate them. this idea of getting information in terms of what is happening with other kind -- companies is a key part of what they wanted. not only are companies see what is happening with the government, but we are now having a visibility in terms of industry. as the program expands, i think we are going to have a much better perspective in terms of what is happening at this point in time. if something serious occurs, there will be indication of it pretty rapidly because you have these feeds. the need to be able to do that in a quick timeframe, otherwise, you will find yourself on the short end of the stick. >> a related question, and something essential for response as coordination -- is
coordination. industry as well as state and local government, i hear often say they do not have access to the intelligence because so much is classified. you hear about the aid and local fusion centers that helped collect a lot of the regional terrorist activity and so forth to exchange with the government. the challenge they face is they cannot access the information the government has, and therefore cannot do their job. are we still in a need to know mentality rather than a need to share mentality? being at nsa, i know that you are dealing with confidence. >> let me make two points. first, in my view, the notion that industry is somehow not privileged to the strategic nature of the threat is not the
case. there are on the front lines every day. nobody knows more about the threats and industry. sure, there can be some whining about the sharing of information, but the notion that they are totally disadvantaged is not true. the disadvantage they have now in that context is reversed. you do not have the sharing of that data and for operations data back to the government side. we had norad which was a north american view of our vulnerability into puget weapons, but we do not have a view from a structure perspective. no question the government needs to send more about the cost five pieces that deal with emerging
capabilities and who is a responsibleto assure that in a broader context. i think you are starting to see some movement in that direction. i would change the nature of the discussion from need to know, which is when you started out with, and end up with need to share. and needs to be the beginning -- definition of what this room thinks needs to be shared with industry, and from the beginning, the classification process would document that. >> one of the things we are wrestling with it is -- some people would call it the csi effect. perhaps in this case the show is "24." they assume there is this huge pot of knowledge that is not being shared with them.
sometimes i speak with police chiefs and they say the same thing. the federal government knows huge thing that they are not sharing, and that is not really the case. one thing we need to do is worker and said there is no one size fits all. you all know there is no such thing as the federal government. it is all of these different agencies. what they control is very different. complaining to dhs that they are not giving you a nsa's information -- hello? maybe we need to think about what we need to share, and to whom. that is one set of information. what needs to go to the government in another set of information. wal-mart means one said, the defense industry needs another. there is a minimum threshold, but we need to begin to parsed
thi this. the stuff that alan has talked about is pretty good. people want to know the threat they are facing, what is a likely attack? if we can get that same sort of specificity for network defenders, that is great. on the political side, because i see this as a political problem to an extent and we do not have the formula for solving cyber security, -- in beaver talking about this before. when you speak to congressman before they have the briefing, it is kept out of the way, what are you bothering me? after they have had a classified briefing -- is it safe to do on- line banking? i tell them, i do online banking but we have a problem.
part of what we need to do and the government is think about what information do we need to get to what set of customers to make them do better? that is a little bit of a different focus. >> you brought up nsa and dhs. i cannot resist touching on them. you mentioned that maintaining disinformation and having different rules. is there enough coordination within federal government? is there and the collaboration with agencies for sharing information and responsibilities? nsa touches dhs and defense. brian, why don't you start us off. >> i mentioned the cyber crime center at dot is the primary
focal point. -- dod is the primary focal point. they were one of the centers developed with the national cyber crime initiative. they are interfacing on a daily basis with u.s. agencies. the dod crime center is into the law enforcement peace. -- piece. they also have direct ties in the u.s. strategic command. what is happening inside dot is also factored in. that goes on on a daily basis. -- dod is also factored in. obviously, you have different agencies and departments working in their own way, but we have
named this effort work, so from the output, going to the defense industrial base is a product that is coordinated across the government. similarly, what is coming in from industry, those are also being shared with department of homeland security and other agencies. i think it is working here. like i said, it is a challenge for the director of their to work through these issues. if we are going to share with industry information may be coming from other agencies and you have to get their approval to get information about the process is working.
it is what people would expect to see from the government in terms of a coordinated effort. >> i know i have spoken to you about dhs' role and a lot of these have a security efforts. are they on track? they have had some leadership changes. >> they took a four phenomenal steps forward and one step back in the past month. some great people went there. michelle leaving does some damage to the government to respond to attacks. i think there is one more player that we keep reading help, and i think they are actually the problem. i do not mean the only problem, but leaving them on would be a mistake. at the time that congress wrote the bill, and the default choice
name the job of setting those specifications to an organization that had no knowledge about the threat, and no access to knowledge about the threat, and a disdain for the people who made the threat. that was a huge national error. as we start to think about that, we should not be thinking about another this is dhs or if nsa is too powerful, but i think the coordination between those agencies is exactly what the nation needs to bring this to the fore, although airbus of errors. we have to fix that. either we have to change people or we have to change with the agency is responsible for setting. you cannot have someone who does not know building standards setting building standards.
>> sure you could. [laughter] >> the other shift you might want to make -- because i agree in the general sense that this sharing issue is under control, people are doing the right thing. you can always find an example that you might not be happy with, but it does not characterize the whole thing. the opportunity of the discussion should be from sharing to integration. the next frontier for us to cross is integrating all of that. so there is a challenge in that. to me, we are held back from dealing with the challenge because we are applying over old ground. those are done. could people generally do a good things, so i'm ok with that. this notion of integrating is
the next frontier. that has implications on the private and public side and implications as will as what you will be doing in this room you will lead that effort because of the demands you will have to the products, services, and technologies that go through what you would do. immigration should be the next discussion, in my mind. -- integration should be the next discussion, in my mind. >> is in focus on technology first? >> process and then technology. you have to envision yourself and the concept of operations or something, where would you do have to integrate with others. then you need the technology that allows the integration to occur. >> i know president obama and dhs have been talking a lot about formulating an official coordinated tiber response plan.
it seems that is one of the priorities that are taking from the cyber security plan that obama announced not long ago. under the bush administration we had cyber storm, the defense department had done quite a few simulated cyber attacks, asking industry and government to respond. so how should this be different? what did we miss in this, and what should we be focusing on in this plan there are putting together now? >> i have no idea. [laughter] >> let me try to tackle this. coordination is going better in the government. there are positive signs, which is good. the problem is, one of the people we are playing with does not organize with us or doesn't
organize like us -- or think like us. right now things are better than they used to date, okay, but what if the guys that we are playing against -- this is a new kind of fight, and here we are talking about national security. we are dragging in ustr, statte. we are not thinking about how to coordinate that and also how to drive that stuff into the exercises. the way we are attacked a man on the the kind of scenario that we have used in the previous exercises. one of the things we have to do is step back and say, if i was a -- i'm going to pick on china
for now. if i was chinese and i woke up in a bad mood and i want to do something, what would i do? it might not be the kind of exercise that we all like to have. how long do we realize this is a bigger strategic problem? >> that was the focus in cyber storm. how did they focus their attacks? what a bummer billeted or that targeting in that case? was anyone here involved with cyber storm? >> and the attacks were fundamentally standard of tax. you have a problem with the theft of data, a problem with your system being down, compromised. those are the one that i remembered. i think there were 13 to marry us. >> i will go back and take one
more swing at the norad bottle. what they had was a way that you can exercise the national system in the north american context and create response of them were practiced and train. i am not seeing anyone in this room, but you might recall that we used to get under our desks in school. the representation that everyone got it was that someone six years old knew how to do it. eligible receiver was not a simulation. that was a real world attack on the department of defense which occurred in the 99 days, and occurred in front of a set of elements which today prevail in important positions. so it was not simulated. they actually saw what the vulnerability is were. they saw that it was asymmetric in the context of the strategies
that were used relative to how we were thinking about defending ourselves. they permitted the exercise to play through to the extent where they could seek damages from that. so the exercises since then have been simulations, and i believe that this is the mark. you may ask yourself, are you willing, at your chair to have a non-simulated real word exercise against your office and have your boss watched so that we all learn what those are? in a larger context, should we have a larger national eligible receiver which creates the same understanding between the public and private sectors? >> where the damage can truly be done. >> you may know better than i do but i found it pretty impressive prayer in one military war games, they decided that they are going to include a cyber.
early on they had to turn it off because it disabled the ability of the military to carry out its mission. that is a big lesson. >> that is pretty scary. what has defense been doing? >> in the last two years that i have been involved in this, -- we have been observers to the department of defense games. our focus has been getting this program moving forward from an operational standpoint. we expect with the relationship we have, that we will be able to take our infrastructure and put it into games that the department of defense can put in place. on a daily basis, we are
engaged. it may not be a high-profile attacks that people think, but the filtration of data is an ongoing effort, at least attempts. so that is a key part, in terms of intellectual capital. it may not be something that you can put your finger on and say there is, but it is something that happens day in, day out. we will, in fact, take the lessons learned. we will integrate those lessons into future exercises. i think it will make it a lot more realistic because we do
have this ongoing relationship with companies now. it is not something you put together for the exercise and in fact will capitalize on something that is in existence. >> i know something that has gotten a lot of attention is the infrastructure. the electric grid was attacked. we think about the transportation system. across the board there are so many areas of critical infrastructure at risk. from what i have heard, they are in worse shape than government even in terms of network protection because they were not billed to exist in the environment. is it critical infrastructure -- is critical infrastructure anywhere near where we need to be? >> whether it is against the government or espionage, and you have heard, this happens every
day. it is irritating to me, as you can tell, that we spend a lot of money on hypothetical threats and we are getting hit every day and we have a hard time realizing it is a priority. so that is our problem. critical infrastructure, a big potential risk. you have to assume every air force has in its plan, if i go to war, i have to blow up critical infrastructure. now they have added a new weapon set for attacking, and that would be cyber weapons. in any conflict in the future, we will probably see some attack against critical infrastructure. it will be disabling. this is not a problem we face right now. it is a risk we face in the future, if there was to be a conflict. i do not agree that critical infrastructure is worse off. some companies are really
secure. other companies are not. our problem is we do not have a good way to tell who is secure. we do not have a good way to see how they can fit together. i think some critical infrastructure companies are probably in better shape than large parts of the government, but we do not have that norad- type of you to say that i am comfortable that we could repel this type of attack. >> there are so many hearings on this topic on the hill. jim, i think you have been there for a few of them. there has been a lot of talk about self regulation to some degree of the critical infrastructure, a lot of organizations of their own to some degree that regulate how to handle security. is that the right approach, not only for critical infrastructure companies, but across the board, is self regulation?
i have talked about it before, but is that the approach to take to ensure security across different markets? >> the model we want to take in this is goldilocks. i will explain why it is a good model. when the european economies do badly? they are overtaxed and over- regulated. ok, we do not want to be in that box. so too much regulation her to us as a nation. then on the other hand there is the faith-based approach. let everyone to their own thing. if you want an historical stand -- example of what that looks like, you can read a novel called "stockyard" which describes the food industry before regulation. we have too hot, too cold, and goldilocks will tell you to go to the middle. we need to find some level of
regulation for some set of critical infrastructure that is appropriate. that will be a difficult to do because people have an allergic reaction to this idea. until we do that, we are not going to get anywhere. the nor an example, we did not say -- airlines are responsible for north american defense. airlines control 85% of air space. they should be responsible for defense. no. >> response, ken? >> where i have always been on that issue, getting back to sharon will ability and opportunity, i do not know how we can get to this goldilocks place because it is no more than the government itself. i am fine with shifting two terms, shifting from a trip -- security and insurance to
communicating that it is more about security, that i have an interest in your ability to survive. it is detect, protect, defend, and reconstitute. there is a set up the events i am expecting you to go through if this occurs. it is business assurance. i'm also finding this with the notion of trust. when my power goes off in my office, i trust certain things are occurring. i do not have regulation, but they better get the power back on. they know that. to me, this notion of trusting each other to get to this goldilocks place, the two words that need to be used is insurance and trust. to me when you do that, you shift to these other ideas like regulation, and that is not really my issue. >> let me thank the panel.
for those who do not have the privilege of working with these people, these are some of the most important people we have driving this dialogue. i wanted to say thank you to each of you first. [applause] i should counter that and say that we do not agree with every topic, but we agreed a lot more than we disagree. there was a time in our nation's history where people did not lock their doors, close their windows, because they did not visualize the risk. over time, people started doing that and started installing alarm systems, they get big dogs, and they do all sorts of things to protect their assets and their lives. we have not talked about hygiene very much. i think there is empirical data that suggest much of the risk that we have enabled abilities we have is related to the absence of human hygiene. this is not just the big
companies but small and medium- sized businesses, homeowners, and individual users. i would be curious as to your thoughts. some of us believe that something needs to happen that would be catalytic to change the paradigm. what if congress were to pass a law, or change in need efficiency regulations, given that the government is such a huge buyer of goods and services, and they set a date that the u.s. government would no longer an by any goods and services from any company that did not certify the fact that in their business process they have a minimum threshold of cyber hygiene. think about what that is. we have lots of cyber matter experts to look at what are the five pop elements of hygiene that would raise the bar of security across the board for everyone. that would be a voluntary
process. if you want to play, if you want to sell pencils or missile parts, you must certify that you practice a minimum threshold of security hygiene as your process. frankly, that would begin changing and would be adopted at the state and local level, and across the commercial industry. what do you think about that from a commercial standpoint? >> alan, i feel like you have addressed this before. >> we talked about this before at a breakfast. there was a spokesperson from putnam. they all talk about industry and everyone ended up voting know. i do not know what to do because it makes sense. but it hit me, you are asking the wrong person.
the idea is exactly right. but that small business cannot protect itself. this is not that industry, this is a good industry, but a good industry sells hardware and software that he cannot protect. the only way we can solve the problem is not to tell him to fix the problem, but for the government to lead by example. i think by using procurement, the government can lead by example and show what hygiene is, and they will make the cost of good hygiene solo, everyone else will comply. i love the idea that you cannot ask grandmother to protect your computer. most importantly, the one left out of the equation, the isp's have to take a role in protecting their users in a way to learn the government to tax its accusers.
i hope it is not regulation but procurement, but i think that we have to prove from a federal perspective that we can show how it is done. we have to bring down the price by buying in volume and then the rest of the world can do it. >> frank? >> i'm brent -- glad you brought that up. but i have talked about so far this morning is a volunteer program at the corporate level with companies, and one that we expect will continue to expand. but the other piece that we envisioned when we began this was looking at our acquisition and contract in policy. that has been undertaken in another part of the defense, and
they have been working on this for a good while. in the fall, dod expects to put out in advance notice of rule making for the defense, federal allocation. what that means is there will be in dialogue with industry on how we want to move forward on integrating information, assurances, cyber security in our contracts. this will be in all contracts. so this advanced notice is an effort to say, we know we need to have this dialogue, we want to have it, we are not just going to come up with the guidance, so here it is. this is going to be something
you can watch. when it comes out, it will be publicly announced. i expect it is an effort on the part of dod, as it is on the volunteer program to move forward on essentially the standards and what is something that is accessible to dod and industry. our regulations today do not have that in their. that is causing issues. so here is the second part of a program to move forward. this should unfold here in the next several months. >> i know a lot of this has to do with what we have turned the supply chain, and it seems often that industry even, who is getting a lot of their products from various locations, it is
difficult to determine how the supply chain is. how do you deal with that? is it industry's responsibility? i know this is a discussion happening right now. how do you insure the supply chain is secure and that the products are coming from a reliable source? >> it is the hardest problem. there is lots of evidence that proves if someone really wants to hide something in software or firmer, occurring processes cannot find it. so who should be responsible? there is this the xenophobia that says let's build it in the u.s., but anyone who wants to mess it up with just get them to work for the company in the u.s., so there is no protection for making in in the u.s..
i think it is the manhattan- sized project that is the problem. the strategic center, that is where they will look for the stroke point in the supply chain and they will spend what ever it takes, including bundling by the rules, and the response to that will be the most expensive thing we do insecurity and will last us the next three years. and we have not even begun yet. >> this is almost back to the basics in terms of response, but the big issue is communication, beyond information sharing. he talked about state and local response. do we have the ability beyond -- across government, state, local, federal, and industry, to
communicate we want to, to coordinate a response in the moment? are the communication lines open between various segments of government? >> i have revealed but i think, which is there is no national communications infrastructure that allows us to communicate. i think you could easily find when i will find harbors of expertise within industry better able to do that, but the larger context for the threat is a north american-like context, and it has not matured at all in the sense that we had as a nation earlier in the 20th-century, relative to the technology that existed in those days. so there is a lot of work to be done. this is no criticism, but i think we have gotten -- i would
just quickly generalize. in the past two decades, phase one was a recognition of technology. you had some opportunities emerge. in the last 10 years we have started to understand the complexities of the vulnerability is and opportunities. what we have now is the third component which has not yet emerged. i think that is the next thing to be done at the highest level in order for us to be sharing communication. i'm ok with it. the time has come to do it. >> questions from the audience? now is the time. >> ina manpower person and the people that i need to reach out to our on twitter and blogging and what not, but as you increase security, will that
decrease accessibility, so how do we perceive that? >> it is hard to do. a year ago i went to a conference that was all fortune 500 companies. they had a panel, and these were not cso's, but it was a drug company, and zero co., a bank. they ask, don't you hate twitter, social networking? they said yes, and they wanted to get rid of it, but they could not. their most productive employees use these things because they have been worked into their business model. because they're making money off of it, and they got rid of those things, their companies would be less competitive. younger employees would just leave. so we are stuck. we built this thing and we can get benefit from it. the real issue is not how to
restrict access? the issue is how do i start building in security in other things? people are not going to do it themselves. some of that is supply chain, some of that is acquisitions. so there is a whole set of things that you have to do. the short answer is one of those things is not restricting access. >> i think you fall into the trap -- i mentioned earlier thinking about to carry as opposed to the assurance. when security terrace, long, they implement the kind of thing which would restrict our people from using technologies which they have available to them. if you think about it in a broader sense, you ought to look across the set of opportunities where security is being used. actually, the most insurance the pontiff is authentication. are the people that i won using
this technology using it? it is not expensive, is not interested, but for the set of services, you need security. if you wake up in the morning and all five are on your menu, then you can drive security to the point where it belongs. in this case, not a serious inhibitor. you may want stronger authentication for that, and that is something that younger people are very accustomed to using now in facebook, twitter, everywhere else. >> hong kong has implemented stronger and -- regulation for everything, but they do not all have key fobs, they use their cell phone. have key fobs, they use their cell phone.